Chapter VII.—Letters of the
Emperors Valentinianus and Valens, written to the diocese681681 The
twelve dioceses of the Empire, as constituted under Diocletian, were
(1) Oxiens; (2) Pontica; (3) Asiana; (4) Thracia; (5) Mœsia; (6)
Pannonia; (7) Britanniæ; (8) Galliæ; (9) Viennensis; (10)
Italiciana; (11) Hispaniæ; (12) Africa.of Asia about the Homoüsion, on
hearing that some men in Asia and in Phrygia were in dispute about the
divine decree.

Valentinian ordered a council to be held in Illyricum682682 Under Constantine Illyricum Occidentale included Dalmatia,
Pannonia, Noricum, and Savia; Illyricum Orientale, Dacia, Mœsia,
Macedonia and Thrace.
and sent to the disputants the decrees ratified by the bishops there
assembled. They had decided to hold fast the creed put forth at
Nicæa and the emperor himself wrote to them, associating his
brother with him in the dispatch, urging that the decrees be
kept.

The edict clearly proclaims the
piety of the emperor and similarly exhibits the soundness of Valens in
divine doctrines at that time. I shall therefore give it in full. The
mighty emperors, ever august, augustly victorious, Valentinianus,
Valens, and Gratianus,683683 Eldest son of Valentinian I. Born a.d.
359. Named Augustus 367. Succeeded his father 375; his uncle Valens
378. Murdered 383. The synod was convoked in the year of
Valentinian’s death. to the bishops
of Asia, Phrygia, Carophrygia Pacatiana,684684 Phrygia Pacatiana was the name given in the fourth century to the
province extending from Bithynia to Pamphylia. “Cum in veterum
libris non nisi duæ Phrygiæ occurrant, Pacatiana et
salutaris, mavult Valesius h. l. scribere, καριας
φρυγίας
πακατιανῆς. Sed consentientibus in vulgata lectione omnibus libris
mallem servare καραφρυγίας
πακατιανῆς, quam Pacatianam καροφρυγίαν
dictam esse putaverim quod Cariæ proxime
adhæresceret.” Schulze.
greeting in the Lord.

A great council having met in
Illyricum,685685 The
date of this Council is disputed. “Pagi contending for 373,
others for 375, Cave for 367.” Dict. Ch. Ant. i. 813. after much discussion concerning
the word of salvation, the thrice blessed bishops have declared that
the Trinity of Father, Son, and Holy Ghost is of one substance.686686ὁμοούσιον This Trinity they worship, in no wise
remitting the service which has duly fallen to their lot, the worship
of the great King. It is our imperial will that this Trinity be
preached, so that none may say “We accept the religion of the
sovereign who rules this world without regard to Him who has given us
the message of salvation,” for, as says the gospel of our God
which contains this judgment, “we should render to Cæsar the
things that are Cæsar’s and to God the things that are
God’s.”687687Matt. xxii.
21

What say you, ye bishops, ye
champions of the Word of salvation? If these be your professions, thus
then continue to love one another, and cease to abuse the imperial
dignity. No longer persecute those who diligently serve God, by whose
prayers both wars cease upon the earth, and the assaults of apostate
angels are repelled. These striving through supplication to repel all
harmful demons both know how to pay tribute as the law enjoins, and do
not gainsay the power of their sovereign, but with pure minds both keep
the commandment of the heavenly King, and are subject to our laws. But
ye have been shewn to be disobedient. We have tried every expedient but
you have given yourselves up.688688ἡμεις
ἐχρησάμεθα
τῷ ἅλφα ἕως
τοῦ ὠ ὑμεῖς
δὲ ἑαυτοὺς
ἀπεδώκατε The passage is obscure
and perhaps corrupt. Schulze’s note is “Nisi mendosus sit
locus, quod quidem suspicabatur Camerarius, sensus talis esse videtur:
‘Nos quidem primis usi sumus ad extrema,’ h.e. omnia
adhibuimus et tentavimus ad pacem restituendam et cohibendas
vexationes, ‘vos vero impotentiæ obsecuti
estis.’ Alias interpretationes collegit suamque addidit
Valesius.” The note of Valesius is as follows: hic locus valde
obscurus est. Et Epiphanius quidem scholasticus ita eum vertit: et nos
quidem subjicimur ei qui primus est et novissimus: vos autem vobismet
arrogatis. Quæ interpretatio, meo quidem iudicio, ferri non
potest. Camerarius vero sic interpretatur: nos quidem ordine a primo ad
ultimum processimus tractatione nostra: ipsi vero vosmet ipsos
abalienastis. At Christophersonus ita vertit: nos patientia semper a
principio usque ad finem usi sumus: vos contra animi vestri
impotentiæ obsecuti estis…mihi videtur verbum χρῆσθαι
hoc loco idem significari quod communicare et
commercium habere. Cujus modi est illud in Evangelio: non
coütuntur Judæi Samaritanis. (Johon IV. 9.) We
112however wish to be
pure from you, as Pilate at the trial of Christ when He lived among us,
was unwilling to kill Him, and when they begged for His death, turned
to the East,689689 The turning to the East is not mentioned in the Gospel of St.
Matthew or in the Apocryphal Acts of Pilate; and the Imperial Decree
seems here to import a Christian practice into the pagan Procurators
tribunal. Orientation was sometimes observed in Pagan temples and the
altar placed at the east end; perhaps in connexion with the ancient
worship of the sun. cf. Æsch. Ag. 502; Paus. V. 23. i; Cic. Cat.
iii. §43. In. Virg. Æn. viii. 68 Æneas turns to the East
when he prays to the Tiber. cf. Liv 1. 18. But praying towards the East
is specially a primitive Christian custom, among the earliest
authorities being Tertullian (Apol. XVI.) and Clemens Al. (Stromat.
VII. 7). asked water for his hands and
washed his hands, saying I am innocent of the blood of this righteous
man.690690Matthew xxvii.
24

Thus our majesty has invariably
charged that those who are working in the field of Christ are not to be
persecuted, oppressed, or ill treated; nor the stewards of the great
King driven into exile; lest to-day under our Sovereign you may seem to
flourish and abound, and then together with your evil counsellor
trample on his covenant,691691 “Locus densis,” says Valesius, “tenebris
obvolutus”…The note of Schulze is “primum
ὁ παρακεκλημένος
videtur malus genius esse (φθοριμαῖος
δαίμων postea
dicitur) qui excitaverat (παρεκάλεσε) episcopos ad dissentientes vexandos plane ut crudeles
Judæi excitaverant Pilatum ut Christum interimerent; sic enim in
superioribus Valentinianus dixerat. Porro Valent. non modo ad historiam
Zachariæ a Judæis in templo interfecti alludit, sed, si quid
video, etiam ad verba ea quibus utitur Paulus, Heb. x. 29 τον υἱ&
232·ν τοῦ Θεοῦ
καταπατεῖν
καὶ τὸ αἷμα
τῆς διαθήκης
κοινὸν
ἡγήσασθαι, quare placet conjectura Valesii πατεῖν” (the reading adopted in the translation above),
“τὰ
τῆς διαθήκης
αὐτοῦ ὡς ἐπὶ
τοῦ Ζαχαρίου
τοῦ
αἵματος, ut
tota sententia sit: ne hodie sub nostro imperio incrementa capiatis
et cum eo qui vos incitat conculcetis sanguinem fœderis, fere ut
Zachariæ tempore factum est a Judæis.” as in the case of
the blood of Zacharias,692692 It
is to be observed that the imperial letter does not add the probably
interpolated words “son of Barachias” which are a
difficulty in Matt. xxiii. 35, and do not appear in
the Codex Sinaiticus. but he and his
were destroyed by our Heavenly King Jesus Christ after (at) His coming,
being delivered to death’s judgment, they and the deadly fiend
who abetted them. We have given these orders to Amegetius, to Ceronius
to Damasus, to Lampon and to Brentisius by word of mouth, and we have
sent the actual decrees to you also in order that you may know what was
enacted in the honourable synod.

To this letter we subjoin the
decrees of the synod, which are briefly as follows.

In accordance with the great and
orthodox synod we confess that the Son is of one substance with the
Father. And we do not so understand the term ‘of one
substance’ as some formerly interpreted it who signed their names
with feigned adhesion; nor as some who now-a-days call the drafters of
the old creed Fathers, but make the meaning of the word of no effect,
following the authors of the statement that “of one
substance” means “like,” with the understanding that
since the Son is comparable to no one of the creatures made by Him, He
is like to the Father alone. For those who thus think irreverently
define the Son “as a special creation of the Father,” but
we, with the present synods, both at Rome and in Gaul, hold that there
is one and the same substance of Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, in three
persons, that is in three perfect essences.693693 Here for the first time in our author we meet with the word
Hypostasis to denote each distinct person. Compare note on page 36.
“Origen had already described Father, Son and Holy Spirit as
three ὑποστάσεις
or Beings, in opposition to the Monarchians, who saw
in them only three modes of manifestation of one and the same Being.
And as Sabellius had used the words τρία
πρόσωπα for
these modes of manifestation, this form of expression naturally fell
into disfavour with the Catholics. But when Arius insisted on
(virtually) three different hypostases in the Holy Trinity, Catholics
began to avoid applying the word hypostases to the Persons of the
Godhead. To this was added a difficulty arising from the fact, that the
Eastern Church used Greek as the official language of its theology,
while the Western Church used Latin, a language at that time much less
well provided with abstract theological terms. Disputes were caused,
says Gregory of Nazianzus (Orat. xxi. p. 395), διὰ
στενότητα
τῆς παρὰ τοῖς
᾽Ιτάλοις
γλώττης καὶ
ὀνομάτων
πενίαν. (Compare
Seneca Epist. 58.) The Latins used essentia and substantia as
equivalent to the Greek οὐσία and ὑπόστασις, but interchanged them, as we have seen in the translation
of the Nicene Creed with little scruple, regarding them as synonyms.
They used both expressions to describe the Divine Nature common to the
Three. It followed that they looked upon the expression “Three
Hypostases” as implying a division of the substance of the Deity,
and therefore as Arian. They preferred to speak of “tres
Personæ.” Athanasius also spoke of τρία
πρόσωπα,
and thus the words πρόσωπα and Personæ became current among the Nicene party. But about
the year 360, the Neo-Nicene party, or Meletians, as they are sometimes
called, became scrupulous about the use of such an expression as
τρία
πρόσωπα,
which seemed to them to savour of Sabellianism. Thus a difference arose
between the old Athanasian party and the Meletians.” Archd.
Cheetham in Dict. Christ. Biog. Art. “Trinity.”
And we confess, according to the exposition of Nicæa, that the Son
of God being of one substance, was made flesh of the Holy Virgin Mary,
and hath tabernacled among men, and fulfilled all the economy694694 Compare note on page 72. for our sakes in birth, in passion, in
resurrection, and in ascension into Heaven; and that He shall come
again to render to us according to each man’s manner of life, in
the day of judgment, being seen in the flesh, and showing forth His
divine power, being God bearing flesh, and not man bearing
Godhead.

Them that think otherwise we
damn, as we do also them that do not honestly damn him that said that
before the Son was begotten He was not, but wrote that even before He
was actually begotten He was potentially in the Father. For this is
true in the case of all creatures, who are not for ever with God in the
sense in which the Son is ever with 113the Father, being begotten by
eternal generation.

Such was the short summary of
the emperor. I will now subjoin the actual dispatch of the
synod.

689 The turning to the East is not mentioned in the Gospel of St.
Matthew or in the Apocryphal Acts of Pilate; and the Imperial Decree
seems here to import a Christian practice into the pagan Procurators
tribunal. Orientation was sometimes observed in Pagan temples and the
altar placed at the east end; perhaps in connexion with the ancient
worship of the sun. cf. Æsch. Ag. 502; Paus. V. 23. i; Cic. Cat.
iii. §43. In. Virg. Æn. viii. 68 Æneas turns to the East
when he prays to the Tiber. cf. Liv 1. 18. But praying towards the East
is specially a primitive Christian custom, among the earliest
authorities being Tertullian (Apol. XVI.) and Clemens Al. (Stromat.
VII. 7).

692 It
is to be observed that the imperial letter does not add the probably
interpolated words “son of Barachias” which are a
difficulty in Matt. xxiii. 35, and do not appear in
the Codex Sinaiticus.

693 Here for the first time in our author we meet with the word
Hypostasis to denote each distinct person. Compare note on page 36.
“Origen had already described Father, Son and Holy Spirit as
three ὑποστάσεις
or Beings, in opposition to the Monarchians, who saw
in them only three modes of manifestation of one and the same Being.
And as Sabellius had used the words τρία
πρόσωπα for
these modes of manifestation, this form of expression naturally fell
into disfavour with the Catholics. But when Arius insisted on
(virtually) three different hypostases in the Holy Trinity, Catholics
began to avoid applying the word hypostases to the Persons of the
Godhead. To this was added a difficulty arising from the fact, that the
Eastern Church used Greek as the official language of its theology,
while the Western Church used Latin, a language at that time much less
well provided with abstract theological terms. Disputes were caused,
says Gregory of Nazianzus (Orat. xxi. p. 395), διὰ
στενότητα
τῆς παρὰ τοῖς
᾽Ιτάλοις
γλώττης καὶ
ὀνομάτων
πενίαν. (Compare
Seneca Epist. 58.) The Latins used essentia and substantia as
equivalent to the Greek οὐσία and ὑπόστασις, but interchanged them, as we have seen in the translation
of the Nicene Creed with little scruple, regarding them as synonyms.
They used both expressions to describe the Divine Nature common to the
Three. It followed that they looked upon the expression “Three
Hypostases” as implying a division of the substance of the Deity,
and therefore as Arian. They preferred to speak of “tres
Personæ.” Athanasius also spoke of τρία
πρόσωπα,
and thus the words πρόσωπα and Personæ became current among the Nicene party. But about
the year 360, the Neo-Nicene party, or Meletians, as they are sometimes
called, became scrupulous about the use of such an expression as
τρία
πρόσωπα,
which seemed to them to savour of Sabellianism. Thus a difference arose
between the old Athanasian party and the Meletians.” Archd.
Cheetham in Dict. Christ. Biog. Art. “Trinity.”